Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

> They can just visit a site from a different country that doesn't respect our legal framework

That's called noncompliance. This is why a simpler framework is better: do you demonstrably serve content to children in this jurisdiction illegally? Then you'll incur fines and a warrant here. Better not have revenue or visit here. And we could put the same liability on advertisers funding it so there's just no financial incentive for anyone.

Bittorrent is trivial to block, other countries are easy to block on your router, and it would be simple enough to just say running an open proxy incurs liability for anything you front if you obscure the originating location or allow international traffic. Again the basic principle is "are you providing access to the general public with no gating to restricted material?" In any case, obscure Russian forums you can access through Tor are an afterthought compared to e.g. Reddit, which hosts both Roblox forums and porn today with no wall between them. There's no reason to allow that.

Note also that provider liability doesn't mean we can't also have filtering. Liability just creates the correct incentives for providers to help ensure the solution actually works. If liability with no prescription for a solution would lead to ID checks and not working with vendors to have working filters, that kind of reveals what we think would actually work.

As far as virtual cards go, do they not still require payment information? Surely business don't want to deal with anonymous purchases since that's begging for fraud? In any case, service provider liability is still compatible here. I didn't say they need to check ID. Neither does e.g. the Texas law. It says someone needs to verify age. They can use a commercial service for it. The virtual card provider or gift card retailer could provide that service and assume or share liability.

I'm not even necessarily advocating for a new regulation. I'm saying recognize public indecency/lewd behavior for what it is, and ban things like gambling in children's games. Recognize that public websites with no access gates are public spaces and act accordingly. And yes I consider checking ID for a handful of specific services to be less intrusive than everyone supporting some header. I don't consider the former to be intrusive at all really. The latter is basically impossible if for no other reason than there are already billions of devices that don't. It's a fantasy non solution that basically amounts to "do nothing".

> NOR any particular desire

“Nor” doesn’t fit there IMHO, “or” is part of the nested either-or clause, so I don’t believe it to be incorrect.

Regardless, I lay no claim to perfect grammar, decades on the internet seems to have atrophied that skill. I also acknowledge my overuse of commas.

> You're trying to call me uneducated to distract from your poor attempt at passing off as a native

Funny, because to me it looked a lot like you started to throw doubt on my nationality when you didn’t want to deal with the subject we were discussing any more.

> I hope it's not too cold in Russia!

I hope it’s fucking freezing and Vladimir Putin freezes his balls off, personally. It couldn’t happen to a nicer dictator.

The fact you’re hoping for milder weather in Russia reveals that you are in fact the Russian troll in this conversation. Confirmed by your signoff calling me comrade. Major cockup there eh? Your handler will not be pleased…

> I do wonder how many would detransition if it wasn’t too embarrassing for them

Well I wonder how many would transition in the first place if the culture (and law) allowed for gender fluidity without judgement or violence.

Also: not speaking for all queer people here, but if a person wants to detransition because they changed their mind/feel differently as they age/whatever the fuck reason, that’s fine!

> The fact you’re hoping for milder weather in Russia reveals that you are in fact the Russian troll in this conversation.

It's so funny how badly you misunderstand English.

This is highly entertaining :)

That isn't a third category, those are people who have been convicted of a crime and want to commit another one. It's the same general category of not being able to solve people committing crimes by making already-illegal things even more illegal. And on top of that you get to add two new problems.

The first is the deterrent to reporting, both before and after a conviction. In the original case the victim now can't even report a domestic misdemeanor in the subculture where gun ownership is sacrosanct because either they themselves consider "permanently can't own a gun" too severe a penalty for the crime they were trying to report, or they know the perpetrator will and they're afraid of being booted out into the street or worse if they do it. And for someone who already has a conviction but still has a gun, now the other people in the household can't be calling the police for any reason because if the police find the gun the person keeping a roof over their head is going to prison for years. In general you want the penalties for things to be proportionate and making them disproportionate makes things worse instead of better.

The second is that the victim, or any future victims, are living in the same household as the perpetrator, and then how do you answer this question: Is the victim now prohibited from having a firearm? You're screwed either way, because if you say no you're denying the innocent victim's right to self-defense but if you say yes the perpetrator now has an excuse to have them in the house.

Then these things combine poorly because the overconfident drunk who wants a gun is willing to bet they can convince anyone it belongs to their sweetheart but the sweetheart is nowhere near as confident they can control what happens if they call the police.